The post you are reporting:
Hi Keith,
The questions that you raise again have already been answered, several times, on earlier threads. However, for your benefit I will summarise again here.
1) Where's the money coming from?
Initially via a syndicated loan raised by and between 4 major banks. We have the written support of these banks already, subject to full due diligence.
This syndicated loan is a temporary measure only and acts as a bridge to bond. Long term finance is derived from the sale of bonds on the international bond markets. Bond finance is one of the most efficient ways of raising money for infrastructure purchase and development, so long as the terms and conditions of the bonds are met, bond purchasers have no interest in decision making, strategy or ownership, they want long term predictable income. Bond markets indicate that, based on the DPPT business plan, corporate accountability to stakeholders, the nature of the asset and the medium term framework agreements that are planned with the port's users, bonds issued will receive an investment grade rating attracting a low rate of interest. Bonds will be issued in different tranches to be repurchased by DPPT in such a way that they can be sold back into the market as required to raise finance for major port infrastructure development projects. Average interest rate for the Port of Dover is significantly lower than that achieved for a similar type of bond issue undertaken by the purchasers of the HS1 and the publicly available numbers from DHB, in depth knowledge of the existing market and medium term trends, independent stress testing of the financial model, etc. all conclude that the bonds are serviceable and still allow sufficient free cash flow to meet the needs of port maintenance, intermediate investment in catch up maintenance and improvements and still provide a substantial annual sum of money to transfer to the Regeneration Vehicle of the DPPT for community benefit.
2) Who is Financing it?
Commercial confidentiality and the hostility of the DHB to any proposal that does not deliver their private equity model mean that the names of the banks involved cannot be divulged at this time.
3) Powers
The DPPT constitution is a public document and is available on line. The powers, duties and responsibilities of the organisation, its members, directors and chair are detailed in the constitution.
to summarise the powers of members:
Each member will have an equal vote which they can utilise to call SGMs, to nominate and elect 4 directors to the board, to approve (or not) remuneration, to decide rule changes (if required), to indicate support for, or opposition to, major infrastructure developments costing more than the port's annual turnover and to hold the directors of the board and the chair to account.
Those appear to be the three questions that you have put forward for now and I have answered them to the best of my knowledge as completely as possible. I do speak at various community fora, I am available and visible in town and can often be found shopping there or spending time with my family there and am quite happy to answer all questions asked of me whenever they are asked.
Alexander, there were many hundreds of submissions made to the DfT over the course of the various consultation periods that have taken place. All submissions will be taken into account by the Minister when making a decision on the DHB proposal, we have never said differently. The DPPT is part of the process and this process, as I said before, is ongoing. It isn't over yet. When I made my own private submission to the DfT (which included the basic elements of what has since grown into the DPPT) in March 2010 I received the same letter back. DPPT made a corporate submission during the second consultation period in July/August 2010 and received a similar reply from the DfT, as I keep telling you, DPPT takes full part in the ongoing consultation process and is in no position to subvert or hijack it. Consultation did not end in March 2010, additional consultation took place in July/August 2010, further consultation took place in August 2011 and interested parties and persons who had made submissions during consultations were invited to meet with senior civil servants (this was an invitation open to all and interested parties had to write to the DfT to make appointments to see the Civil Servants) and then the Minister for consultation in December 2011 and January 2012. I didn't see you round the table with the Minister and the other parties who had taken the effort to make appointments and meet directly with senior civil servants at the invitation of the Secretary of State for Transport.
There is no legal or moral bar to the DPPT engaging in active campaigning and lobbying to 1) ensure that the DHB private equity proposal is rejected by the DfT and 2) to promote a permanent solution to the port's ownership status that allows the port access to the capital markets to finance growth and development whilst taking decisions over the ownership out of the hands of an out of touch executive and central government and placing them into the hands of the local community and the port's other stakeholders permanently.
I believe that the DPPT proposal is the best long term solution for our port and for our communities. Others are unsure or are opposed for a multitude of reasons, some based on misunderstanding, some based on principle. All views are valid, part of my job is to explain and persuade so that community ownership of the port becomes a reality that cannot be changed at the whim of money hungry executives or a silver selling government with a short term parliamentary length planning horizon.